Content: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Background: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to TerraFirmaCraft Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    • Crysyn

      Only help if you can be helpful

      Hey All, A topic has come up of late in the IRC channel in regards to the general feel of the forums and the community that supports them. Things have progressed further than I would have liked with out this being addressed more publicly because I would much rather have snubbed this out sooner rather than later.. but I have been busy. Here is the general rule I would like people to follow: Wheaton's Law "Don't be a dick." Those of you from the IRC channel know that this is the only rule I ask people in there to follow and we generally have a good and lively time chatting about all manner of things. This is basic rule that just about everyone understands and I am going to expand it to the forums from here moving forward. If you can not help people in a helpful and polite manner then I simply ask you to stop. Now I generally take a back seat to moderating the forums as I like to participate in the suggestions forum fairly heavily at times and would rather do so as a forums user than a moderator. But I am also fairly well known for being the person who constantly puts their foot down and so I am stepping up and doing so on here. If you find yourself unable to respond to a message politely then I ask that you do not respond. This mostly focuses on the increasing level of hostility found within the Suggestion forum as well as the Server forum. I do not care if this is the 30th some odd time you have seen someone make the same suggestion. Or even if the new post on an older topic is one entry above the old one. I expect the members of this forum to respond politely to the user, new or old, and point to the older topic if it applies and even go the extra step to suggest they either add in new information or to summarize the outcome of the previous discussion based upon the new post's entry into it. That is what we are here for, that is why I close most topics instead of deleting them, so that they can be found and referenced down the road. The next topic is the slew of derailment attempts I have seen as of late. If you want to have fun and joke around that is what the off topic forum is for and pretty much anything goes there. I do not expect to read a suggestion thread and have to go through 3 pages of image memes people have shot back and forth. Quite simply this is a waste of my time to read and then have to clean up. Now for the summary. I am going to start taking a more active role, especially in policing the suggestion forum, and handing out warn levels to people whom I see doing this. These will be indiscriminate and applied not to just the first person who derails or is impolite on a topic or response, but to everyone whom follows the lead of that person. As I do not like doing things with out giving you all warning this post shall serve as that warning. If you have a desire to bring this topic up with me then I invite you to do so on the IRC channel. Lets raise the level of quality and grow the community. Let us not descend into the quality often found on the minecraft or league of legend forums. There is simply no need for that here. Be passionate about things, just do not be abusive.
    • Kittychanley

      Offline Servers

      Recently I've seen a few server listings showing up on the first page of the Servers forum that have been closed for an extended period of time, but have recently gotten a reply from a new member who didn't realize the server is offline. To help prevent this from happening in the future, it would be greatly appreciated if you could use the report function on the original post of any servers that have been confirmed as offline, so that the topic may be locked. If you are the admin of a server and plan on taking the server offline, please use the report function on the original post of your topic to let the TFC Staff know that the topic should be locked. If you are the admin of a server that has a locked topic, and would wish to bring the server back online, please use the report function on the original post of the topic to let the TFC Staff know that the topic should be unlocked. As always, please remember to follow rule #3 of the servers forum and update your topic title to contain the version of TFC that the server is currently running. You can do so by editing the OP, and then clicking on "Use Full Editor."
TheSnarkyKnight

Weapons, sheats, and ranged weapons

What do you think of this suggestion?   2 members have voted

  1. 1. How do you feel about my suggestion? Do you think TFC 2 would benefit from the things I suggested? Do you want TFC 2 to have these features?

    • Yes, they're AWESOME!!!!!!
      1
    • Yes, they're nice.
      1
    • I really feel kinda indifferent about it.
      0

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

34 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

VERY IMPORTANT: I messed up while making the poll, the options were supposed to be five but I accidentally clicked enter while writing. The options are the following:

  • Yes, I love it!!!!
  • Yes, it's a nice idea.
  • I'm indifferent about it.
  • No, it could be better (explain why).
  • No, I hate it and you should feel ashamed for writing it.

Please let me know in the comments what you think of this suggestion :)

NEW MECHANICS

Spoiler

SHEATHS

The player could craft an item called a "sheath". These items would be used up by right clicking (like the crafting table) and would give the player a new inventory slot, a slot that could be occupied only by weapons. The player would be able to have up to three sheath slots. These slots would appear on the bottom left side of the screen, on the left side of the hotbar (like witchery's vampire abilities), and the player would be able to scroll over to them with the mouse wheel like they were normal hotbar slots. The player would be able to equip weapons in these slots based on their size: a big weapon would occupy two slots, a huge weapon would occupy three slots, while medium weapons would occupy only one. This would mean that the player, after he/she crafted the sheaths, wouldn't have to waste precious inventory space on weapons and would be able to whip them out in every occasion. Sheathed weapons would render on the player, to make it visible to other players that this player is armed and could attack. Weapons not in a slot would attack more slowly, precisely 0,5 seconds slower. This would make not having a sheath annoying but not debilitating while also giving players a reason (other than comfortable weapon carrying) to use sheaths.

SHIELDS

There would be different types of shields. Shields would have to be equipped on your back slot, thus removing the possibility of carrying a quiver or a barrel. However, shields would automatically appear in the player's offhand whenever he/she scrolled over to a sheat slot containing a one-handed weapon (one handed weapons aren't necessarily medium weapons: spears are big, but can be used with one hand and were historically used in conjunction with a shield, to much effect, by many ancient civilizations, first and foremost the Romans and Greeks) and would so be used to readily block attacks. Shields would not appear in the player's hand when he/she scrolled over a slot containing a two-handed weapon (for obvious reasons). The different shield types would be:

  • Round shield, that would offer decent protection and still let you walk around pretty easily while blocking (a bit faster than sneaking speed). Also, it would be able to block for the most time and would be the least durable.
  • Heather shield. that would offer more protection than the round but it would slow you down more while blocking (sneaking speed). It would be able to block for a decent amount of time, less than the round but more than the tower; it would have more durability than the round but less than the tower.
  • Tower shield, that would block most damage coming from the front but would slow you down a lot while blocking (think sneaking on soulsand). It would be able to block for the least amount of time and would have high durability.

DAMAGE TYPES AND DAMAGE RESISTANCES

Different weapons would deal different damage types (as they already do in TFC 1) however I suggest to expand this, and to expand this I took inspiration from Darmo's Damage System Suggestion: there would be different armour types. I suggest reading Darmo's suggestion because it's interesting. Anyway, let me express my suggestion:

  • Slashing damage (swords) would be effective against soft and unarmoured targets (eg players, zombies, villagers, witches, slimes, creepers, goblins...) and light armours (leather and padded)
  • Piercing damage (spears and morningstars) would be effective against medium targets (eg creatures with a tougher skin like orks and trolls, beasts' hide) and medium armours (scale and chain mail)
  • Hacking damage (axes) would be effective against hard targets (eg skeleton's bones, ent's bark, dragon's scales...) and lamellar armour
  • Blunt damage (maces and hammers) would be effective against very hard targets (giant insect's exoskeleton, metal and rock golems and elementals) and plate armour

ATTACK RANGE

In vanilla minecraft, you're able to hit everything from 4 blocks away. I suggest that this range should be reduced to 1 block with items and to 2 with tools (Since I am no code myself, I don't know how much time and effort this would take, or if it's even possible; if it isn't or isn't worth it, ignore this first sentence). Different weapons would give you different attack ranges: a sword would make you able to attack at the default 4 blocks, while axes,maces and hammers would hit from only 3 blocks away. Spears would have the longest reach of all, with the short spear hitting from 5 blocks away, the spear from 6 and the pike from an incredible 7. Two-handed weapons would have their reach enhanced by 1: a greatsword would hit from 5 blocks away, while a two handed mace,axe or hammer would hit from 4 blocks away.

ARMOUR

I suggest to add different armour types, each having of course pro and cons. These armour types would be:

  • Leather Armour, that would be classified as light armour. It would be one of the cheapest to make and will probably be the first armour that the player will ever make. It should be crafted like the leather armour from TFC 1 and have low defense against everything. It would also be needed to craft the other armours, that would have it as their base.
  • Padded Armour (gambeson) would be classified as light armour; it would be made from wool (padding) and cloth, and would have medium protection against blunt but bad protection against all the other types. The main reason to craft this would be to craft plate armour, that would require padded armour as its base.
  • Chain Mail would be classified as medium armour. It would be made from chain sheets and a leather armour as a base. It would have good protection against slashing and medium against blunt and hacking, but poor protection against piercing.
  • Scale Mail would be classified as medium armour. It would be made from metal scales with a leather armour as a base. It would have medium protection against all weapon types, but still retain a weakness to piercing damage. It would so be the most balanced of all the armour types
  • Lamellar Mail would be classified as heavy armour. It would be made from small metal plates (lamels) and a leather armour and a gambeson as a base. It would also take more time to smith than the medium armours. It would have high resistance against all damage types except hacking, to whom it should only have medium resistance. The higher material and time cost would be justified by the high resistance
  • Plate Armour would be classified as heavy armour (very heavy?). It would be made from metal plates, chain sheets, a leather armour and a gambeson. It would take the most time out of all the armours to make, requiring the player to sew the gambeson and the leather armour together, then add the chain links onto the leather, then add the metal plates, in a process that takes 4-5 steps to complete (I know that armour isn't made this way, but minecraft doesen't have slots for the padded vest, then the chainmail, then the plates, so this is as close as we can get imho). The result would be an armour that takes an exhorbitant amount of time and resources to make and slows the player down slightly, but offers very high damage resistance against hacking, slashing and piercing and high damage resistance against blunt.

RANGED WEAPONS

I think it's time to leave the vanilla bow behind, as just attacking the enemy from far away with arrows made of flint and downing a zombie in 3-4 shots is a bit much. So I suggest adding different ranged weapons these would be:

  • Shortbow; this bow would be the "middle ground" of ranged weapons. It would be able to kill unarmoured zombies in 5 hits and it would have a maximum range of 64 blocks- that is, 4 chunks. This maximum range means that after 64 blocks the arrows start falling to the ground much faster, making hitting something really, really hard. This value might seem high, but I tried setting a range that felt "right" for a bow, also, there are no aim-assists, so the player would need to be really good at aiming to hit something at that distance.
  • Longbow; this bow would take more resources to build (I can't specify which resources as I'm pretty much clueless on bow-making) ,would be a "huge" weapon (takes all 3 sheath slots) and would fire slower than the shortbow, but these disadvantages would be offset by sheer power of the bow: its maximum range would be 80 blocks (5 chunks) and it would be able to kill an unarmoured zombie in 2 hits.
  • Crossbow; this weapon would be rather hard to build, requiring a specially built set of arms, rope and metal parts (can't remember their names right now). It would be a big weapon (two sheath slots) and would use a different kind of ammo from the bows. It would have the longest maximum range out of all the ranged weapons: 96 blocks -6 chunks (!!!); it would also have a higher damage than the longbow, possibly killing a zombie in one hit if the bolt is of good quality, and have a bonus against plate armour. To offset all this power, it would have an incredibly slow reloading time, and would have to reload after each shot; after reloading, it would be able to fire at any given moment. This would make it the favored "marksman" weapon, effective against single powerful targets but not so much against groups.
  • Sling; this weapon would be the cheapest ranged weapon, and the first the player would make. It would be available in two variants: rope (early game) and leather (later in the game). As an early game weapon, it would be able to throw rocks and give the player some ranged capability in the early game. Later in the game, the player would be able to make metal bullets for this weapon, keeping it effective and useful. Its maximum range would be 32 blocks (2 chunks) and its damage would be defined by the material that the bullet is made of (a heavier metal will make a more damaging bullet, a lighter one will make a bullet that flies further).

MELEE WEAPONS

I think that there should be different kind of weapons, and that there should be a one-handed and a two-handed variant for each weapon type. These weapons would be:

  • Swords, a category composed of one-handed swords and two-handed swords. They would deal slashing damage and be the fastest weapon type. The two-handed sword would also have the "sweep attack" used by vanilla swords (when attack meter is full, if the player is not sprinting, the sword does a wide swing that hits up to 3 mobs in front of the player)
  • Axes, a category composed of waraxes (one-handed) and battle axes (two-handed). They would deal hacking damage and would be slower and would have a slightly shorter range than swords, retaining however a higher attack damage. Battle axes too would have the ability to inflict a "sweep attack"
  • Maces, a category composed of flanged maces (one-handed), morningstars (one-handed) and great maces (two-handed). The maces would deal blunt damage while the morningstars would deal piercing damage. They would have a slightly slower attack speed than axes but would slightly more damage, while having the same range.
  • Hammers, a category composed of warhammers (one-handed) and mauls. They would deal blunt damage (i know that warhammers have a beak for piercing armour, but my idea about dual damage types was not liked very much). They would have the slowest attack speed of all melee weapons and a high damage, while having the same range as axes and maces. The warhammer would have a bonus against plate armour.
  • Spears, a category composed of short spears (one-handed), spears (one-handed) and pikes (two-handed). They would deal piercing damage. They would have a slow attack speed and medium damage but the highest range of all melee weapons. The pike's primary use would be to engage enemies that you really don't want to go toe-to-toe with.

THROWN WEAPONS

There would be two kinds of thrown weapons:

  • Javelins, that would remain pretty much like in TFC 1, except losing a bit of melee effectiveness. They would have a max range of 20 blocks
  • Throwing knives, that would be able to be thrown very quickly. They would break after 3-4 throws, but would be able to be made pretty easily. They wouldn't be able to be used in melee because throwing knives lack an handle (an handle would make the grip heavier and the whole knife unbalanced, making it unsuitable for throwing). They would have a max range of 10 blocks.

EXAMPLE WEAPON VALUE TABLE

NAME

 

DAMAGE (ON 20 HEALTH)

 

RANGE

 

SPEED

 

WEIGHT

 

SIZE

 

HANDS

 

TYPE

 

SPECIAL

 

SWORD

 

5, slashing

 

4 blocks

 

1 s

 

2000 g (medium)

 

80 cm (medium)

 

One-handed

 

Melee

 

N/A

 

GREATSWORD

 

9, slashing

 

5 blocks

 

2 s

 

4000 g (heavy)

 

120 cm (big)

 

Two-handed

 

Melee

 

Sweeping attack

 

WARAXE

 

6, hacking

 

3 blocks

 

1,3 s

 

3000 g (medium)

 

60 cm (medium)

 

One-handed

 

Melee

 

N/A

 

BATTLEAXE

 

10, hacking

 

4 blocks

 

2,4 s

 

6000 g (heavy)

 

100 cm (big)

 

Two-handed

 

Melee

 

Sweeping attack

 

MACE

 

7, blunt

 

3 blocks

 

1,5 s

 

4000 g (heavy)

 

60 cm (medium)

 

One-handed

 

Melee

 

N/A

 

MORNINGSTAR

 

7, piercing

 

3 blocks

 

1,5 s

 

4000 g (heavy)

 

60 cm (medium)

 

One-handed

 

Melee

 

N/A

 

GREAT MACE

 

12, blunt

 

4 blocks

 

2,6 s

 

8000 g (very heavy)

 

100 cm (big)

 

Two-handed

 

Melee

 

N/A

 

WARHAMMER

 

8, blunt

 

3 blocks

 

1,8s

 

6500 g (heavy)

 

60 cm (medium)

 

One-handed

 

Melee

 

Bonus against plate armour

 

MAUL

 

15, blunt

 

4 blocks

 

3,3 s

 

15000 g (very heavy)

 

110 cm (big)

 

Two-handed

 

Melee

 

Halves damage resistance*

 

                 

SPEAR

 

6, piercing

 

6 blocks

 

2 s

 

5000 g (heavy)

 

220 cm (huge)

 

One-handed

 

Melee

 

N/A

 

PIKE

 

8, piercing

 

7 blocks

 

2,8 s

 

10000 g

 

400 cm (huge)

 

Two-handed

 

Melee

 

N/A

 

SHORTBOW

 

5, piercing

 

64 blocks

 

2 s (time to fully draw)

 

3000 g (medium)

 

100 cm (big)

 

Two-handed

 

Ranged

 

N/A

 

LONGBOW

 

10, piercing

 

80 blocks

 

3s (time to fully draw)

 

6000 G (heavy)

 

180 cm (huge)

 

Two-handed

 

Ranged

 

N/A

 

SLING

 

4 (varies), blunt

 

32 blocks

 

1 s

 

500 g (light)

 

50 cm (medium)

 

One-handed

 

Ranged

 

N/A

 

CROSSBOW

 

12, piercing

 

96 blocks

 

3,6 s (reload time)

 

15000 g (very heavy)

 

100 cm (big)

 

Two-handed

 

Ranged

 

Bonus against plate armour

 

JAVELIN

 

7, piercing

 

20 blocks

 

2 s

 

2000 g (medium)

 

150 cm (big)

 

One-handed

 

Thrown

 

Fits inside quiver

 

THROWING KNIFE

 

4, slashing

 

10 blocks

 

0,8 s

 

50 g (light)

 

15 cm (small)

 

One-handed

 

Thrown

 

Fits inside quiver

 

*To make this simple, I'll make an example: the maul does 15 damage, the enemy's armour reduces all damage in half (that's an op suit of armour),  so the maul should do only half damage (7.5); however, the maul cuts damage resistance in half, so it does three quarters or its original damage (half of an half is one quarter, so full damage (four quarters) minus one quarter equals three quarters... that's 11,25 by the way)

This is of course only an example of the possible characteristics of the weapons.

 

 

Edited by TheSnarkyKnight
TOTAL TOTAL REWORK (AGAIN) PART 1
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I must admit that it would have been cool if it was possible to accomplish at this state
However, it's not

The developper is bothered (if he even continues his work, hasn't been much news lately) with task of greater importance, like TFC2 itself
For all I know there is still so much to do before small and less important things like combat mechanics can be implemented

Nevertheless, there might be some gold handed mod maker who will be able to develop somethink of this kind, but I doubt anybody will

Get your hopes up and look forward to TFC2
My bet is that only there you might see somethink of this kind

Edited by Sugar_Fox
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

OK, never mind, I take some of my words back
TFC IS being hard worked on
It's just my incompetence

Ahh, feel so ashamed right now
Sorry Bioxx for doubting you ♥

Edited by Sugar_Fox
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sugar_Fox said:

I must admit that it would have been cool if it was possible to accomplish at this state
However, it's not

The developper is bothered (if he even continues his work, hasn't been much news lately) with task of greater importance, like TFC2 itself
For all I know there is still so much to do before small and less important things like combat mechanics can be implemented

Nevertheless, there might be some gold handed mod maker who will be able to develop somethink of this kind, but I doubt anybody will

Get your hopes up and look forward to TFC2
My bet is that only there you might see somethink of this kind

You see, this is in fact a suggestion fort TFC 2. The second one, the one that's being developed, not the first one. I added weapon speed because I suppose that TFC 2 is being developed for 1.9 or later, but I don't know so yeah.

I know that they are currently working on the big things in the mod (world gen, maybe a temperature system) but I wanted to throw this out there.

6 minutes ago, Sugar_Fox said:

OK, never mind, I take some of my words back
TFC IS being hard worked on
It's just my incompetence

Ahh, feel so ashamed right now
Sorry Bioxx for doubting you ♥

Yeah, Bioxx and the dev team are just awesome.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 minutes ago, TheSnarkyKnight said:

You see, this is in fact a suggestion fort TFC 2. The second one, the one that's being developed, not the first one. I added weapon speed because I suppose that TFC 2 is being developed for 1.9 or later, but I don't know so yeah.

I know that they are currently working on the big things in the mod (world gen, maybe a temperature system) but I wanted to throw this out there.

Yeah, Bioxx and the dev team are just awesome.

Well, actually, if it is being developped for 1.9, then you do have a point
That could (should (will)) make it easier to implemend
Although, once again, after firepits and stuff are finished

Edited by Sugar_Fox
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 minutes ago, Sugar_Fox said:

Well, actually, if it is being developped for 1.9, then you do have a point
That could (should (will)) make it easier to implemend
Although, once again, after firepits and stuff are finished

Yeah. That's the most important stuff anyway. And even then, we don't know how many people like this idea. You're the only one that answered this topic. And even if a lot of people liked the idea, it would be up to the will of the gods devs.

Edited by TheSnarkyKnight
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

36 minutes ago, TheSnarkyKnight said:

 I added weapon speed because I suppose that TFC 2 is being developed for 1.9 or later, but I don't know so yeah.

Last I saw on github, TFC2 is up to 1.11.

While I'm here, in general I think the minecraft combat system is not sophisticated enough to justify a ton of weapon variance like this.  Your ideas kind of depend upon parallel development of both a varied armor system (right now everything is either leather, or heavy) and a lot more combat nuance.  I mean why would I ever use anything other than a warhammer as my one-handed weapon?  It does two damage types AND is armor-piercing.  It'd be best for basically anything that isn't specifically weak against slashing. 

I don't see range (for melee weapons) as being an issue, there's just not enough subtlety for that, at least in my experience.  I'm also a bit dubious that speed will make much difference.  Unless the mobs are good kiters, and/or can use shields extremely well.  It's all about dps, and given similar dps between a quick low damage and a slow high damage, I'll probably go slow high, because it will probably wear out slower, unless that's a systematic factor. 

Two vs One handed is a stylistic choice when each style has a large range of other variables available.  Why would I take *any polearm at all* when a warhammer does more damage AND only takes one hand?  Honestly, who's going to give up shield protection vs missles?  EVERY SINGLE two handed weapon needs to do way more damage than ANY single handed weapons, to make two-handed weapons attractive, unless they have a really awesome special. 

So that leaves my primary considerations as raw damage, and damage types.  Obviously I'll want to maximize my damage types, so I'll lean toward anything that does multiple damage types.  Carrying two weapons vs 3 is worth a lot.  I would suggest avoiding dual-damage-type weapons; It's too hard to balance vs single types.

To be well-balanced, each weapon needs to fill a niche, and have something about it superior to others.  Otherwise it's so much wasted sprites.

Another possible factor to consider would be weight.  assuming it's still the plan to have items have an actual weight, and the player to have a carry limit, then that could become a factor for larger vs smaller weapons.

Also (and here I'm delving into suggestions realm), if there were a sheathe system.  Say the player could have a special 'weapon belt' container that could hold multiple weapons, but ONLY small-medium ones.  This would enhance the encumbering nature of larger weapons.

Or, certain damage types could factor into harvesting.   So if you're hunting for meat (or monster parts) you need to choose your weapon appropriately.  Piercing weapons will reduce hide yield, and slashing will severely reduce it.  On the other hand, blunt and slashing weapons will traumatize the flesh, so piercing weapons would be preferred for hunting when the goal is harvesting meat.  Internal organs?  best go blunt - piercing will tend to severely harm internal organs.  Slashing less so, but  more than blunt.  You need bones?  Don't go blunt!  This would require mobs to track types  of damage done to them.  Either on a 'balance' system where proportions are tracked, or a simpler 1-time system, where doing a certain damage type just once causes the effect.

moreover, I think it might be good to have a fourth damage type - hacking.  Hacking would be primarily for axes.  Skeletons and treant-like monsters would be vulnerable to this.  Skeletons should be just as invulnerable to slashing damage as to piercing, and treants should be immune to piercing and bludgeoning damage, and nearly immune to slashing.  One downside would be it would be terrible for harvesting of any type, destroying hide, flesh, organs, and bone.

So there's some thoughts.  Generally, I think the overall game needs more detail and breadth before such a wide array of weapons would be truly useful and balance-able. 

Edited by Darmo
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Darmo said:

Last I saw on github, TFC2 is up to 1.11.

While I'm here, in general I think the minecraft combat system is not sophisticated enough to justify a ton of weapon variance like this.  Your ideas kind of depend upon parallel development of both a varied armor system (right now everything is either leather, or heavy) and a lot more combat nuance.  I mean why would I ever use anything other than a warhammer as my one-handed weapon?  It does two damage types AND is armor-piercing.  It'd be best for basically anything that isn't specifically weak against slashing. 

I don't see range (for melee weapons) as being an issue, there's just not enough subtlety for that, at least in my experience.  I'm also a bit dubious that speed will make much difference.  Unless the mobs are good kiters, and/or can use shields extremely well.  It's all about dps, and given similar dps between a quick low damage and a slow high damage, I'll probably go slow high, because it will probably wear out slower, unless that's a systematic factor. 

Two vs One handed is a stylistic choice when each style has a large range of other variables available.  Why would I take *any polearm at all* when a warhammer does more damage AND only takes one hand?  Honestly, who's going to give up shield protection vs missles?  EVERY SINGLE two handed weapon needs to do way more damage than ANY single handed weapons, to make two-handed weapons attractive, unless they have a really awesome special. 

So that leaves my primary considerations as raw damage, and damage types.  Obviously I'll want to maximize my damage types, so I'll lean toward anything that does multiple damage types.  Carrying two weapons vs 3 is worth a lot.  I would suggest avoiding dual-damage-type weapons; It's too hard to balance vs single types.

To be well-balanced, each weapon needs to fill a niche, and have something about it superior to others.  Otherwise it's so much wasted sprites.

Another possible factor to consider would be weight.  assuming it's still the plan to have items have an actual weight, and the player to have a carry limit, then that could become a factor for larger vs smaller weapons.

Also (and here I'm delving into suggestions realm), if there were a sheathe system.  Say the player could have a special 'weapon belt' container that could hold multiple weapons, but ONLY small-medium ones.  This would enhance the encumbering nature of larger weapons.

Or, certain damage types could factor into harvesting.   So if you're hunting for meat (or monster parts) you need to choose your weapon appropriately.  Piercing weapons will reduce hide yield, and slashing will severely reduce it.  On the other hand, blunt and slashing weapons will traumatize the flesh, so piercing weapons would be preferred for hunting when the goal is harvesting meat.  Internal organs?  best go blunt - piercing will tend to severely harm internal organs.  Slashing less so, but  more than blunt.  You need bones?  Don't go blunt!  This would require mobs to track types  of damage done to them.  Either on a 'balance' system where proportions are tracked, or a simpler 1-time system, where doing a certain damage type just once causes the effect.

moreover, I think it might be good to have a fourth damage type - hacking.  Hacking would be primarily for axes.  Skeletons and treant-like monsters would be vulnerable to this.  Skeletons should be just as invulnerable to slashing damage as to piercing, and treants should be immune to piercing and bludgeoning damage, and nearly immune to slashing.  One downside would be it would be terrible for harvesting of any type, destroying hide, flesh, organs, and bone.

So there's some thoughts.  Generally, I think the overall game needs more detail and breadth before such a wide array of weapons would be truly useful and balance-able. 

1)Yeh, I was kinda thinking that some weapons aren't balanced that well (especially that damned warhammer), but I'm just really bad at balancing. Will try to do that, though.

2) I like the idea of a sheat (or belt, or back strap), however I think that would mean that you could only carry "heavy" or "long" weapons on your back, making polearms even more useless

3)I was thinking about a possible weight based disadvantage while writing this, but wasn't sure whetever to insert it or not

4) I like the idea of a new damage type, that would actually give the axes a reason to exist. While I was coming down with these ideas, I felt like the axes didn't have a lot of variety other than being a slower and shorter ranged but more powerful alternative to swords.

5) Will remove dual type weapons

6) I was actually thinking about the armour problem too. I remember that there was a suggestion a while back that proposed to make three armour types, and I think we could expand upon that.

7) AND MOST IMPORTANT THING: The reason I suggested at least 4 weapons for type was to have the following variants of a weapon: a fast variant, a balanced one, a long-range one and an high damage one.

  EG: Swords

         Fast: Shortsword

         Balances: Longsword

        High Range: Zweihander

        High Damage: Greatsword

   And outside of that I meant for each type to follow a scheme where the more powerful is the weapon you're using, the slower it is (it probably wasn't clear the way I wrote it, but the medium-slow speed of a warhammer is not the medium-slow of a zweihander)

  To make an example, an hypothetical scheme for fast weapons would be this (leftmost is fastest and less damaging, rightmost is most damaging and slowest):

  Shortsword->Hatchet->Flanged Mace/Morningstar-> .... I now realized that polearms don't fit really well at all, since they ALL cover the role of higher range- medium damage. They need a serious reworking

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, so I balanced the various weapon types(or at least I tried to); I completely removed bills and partisans from my suggestion. Now the four roles in the polearm category are so covered:

Fast: Short Spear

Balanced: Spear

HIgh range: Pike

High damage: Halberd

Edited by TheSnarkyKnight
To avoid double-posting
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, I got the speed idea.  It seems like a very D&D-influenced list.  The problem is, minecraft/TFC mechanics are nothing like D&D.  They don't have the granularity, combat is not turn-based, and enemies can't react as intelligently.  Most mobs will either just face-tank you, or stay away.  In those situations speed is not, in and of itself, a great differentiator.  I don't have experience with the new combat system, that incorporates speed, so I'm speaking only from videos I've watched.  But it doesn't really seem like speed makes a lot of difference, at least in vanilla.  Because mobs are just to dumb.  Now in pvp it can, but that's kind of a whole other story.  At least, that's my impression.

As far as armor, if you haven't already read it, I'd point you to the suggestion I made awhile back of a "tier vs tier" weapon and armor system.  Bioxx responded positively, so there's a chance it may become the system.  And it's got some major differences from vanilla.  It actually is an advantage to a more granular weapon and armor system though, because base damage and armor values would be standardized by type, removing material from the balancing equation, making the balancing easier.

The idea of being forced to carry large weapons in your inventory, vs smaller weapons in a sheathe, is the whole point of that idea.  It allows you to give larger weapons more damage or other advantages, because they also have more disadvantages.  The more advantages/disadvantages brought in to play, the easier it is to make a broad array of weapons, in theory, because you have more 'knobs' to adjust for each one.  That particular sheathe idea has issues of it's own though, insofar as how do you quickly access the weapons inside?  Because that warhammer in the sheathe will not be much help if you're surprised by a skeleton and have to go into your inventory and pull it out manually.  But that's a detail, and not the point.  The point is, think up little ideas that can play into the weapon advantage/disadvantage system.  Don't just stick with the obvious stuff.  If you limit yourself to just basic weapon stuff like speed and damage, you're inherently limiting the useful array of weapons.

As a side comment, I know two-handed swords have a very popular place in mythology and fantasy.  But everything I'm read, from a historical perspective, indicates that they were a highly specialized type of sword, used for a very limited time, in very limited circumstances - mostly with relation to polearms.  Which isn't to say they shouldn't be part of a system - it's a fantasy game after all.  But I'd prioritize weapons that were used more broadly, over longer time periods.  Polearms themselves were a weapon used in mass formations, which minecraft just isn't about.  I'd love to see them used by mobs in formation, but I doubt that's practical.   I consider polearms different from spears though.  Spears are arguably the oldest and longest-used constructed weapon mankind has ever had aside from perhaps a club, and should absolutely be in. 

Another advantage I'd suggest for polearms (and large weapons in general) is that extremely large creatures intrinsically take half damage from medium weapons, and 10% damage from small weapons.  Simply put, you can't reach a giant's vital organs with a longsword.  You're fighting his lower legs.  That should be relatively easy to code vs a lot of other ideas (though it would lose some logic if the player's can at some point fly).

Sort of in summary, it seems a bit like you're trying to take all the major fantasy weapons and give them a role.  I think instead it'd be better if you develop a basic framework, and then expand only as far as you can create distinct advantageous roles.  Perhaps don't try to shoehorn in weapons just because they existed once upon a time irl.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Darmo said:

Ya, I got the speed idea.  It seems like a very D&D-influenced list.  The problem is, minecraft/TFC mechanics are nothing like D&D.  They don't have the granularity, combat is not turn-based, and enemies can't react as intelligently.  Most mobs will either just face-tank you, or stay away.  In those situations speed is not, in and of itself, a great differentiator.  I don't have experience with the new combat system, that incorporates speed, so I'm speaking only from videos I've watched.  But it doesn't really seem like speed makes a lot of difference, at least in vanilla.  Because mobs are just to dumb.  Now in pvp it can, but that's kind of a whole other story.  At least, that's my impression.

As far as armor, if you haven't already read it, I'd point you to the suggestion I made awhile back of a "tier vs tier" weapon and armor system.  Bioxx responded positively, so there's a chance it may become the system.  And it's got some major differences from vanilla.  It actually is an advantage to a more granular weapon and armor system though, because base damage and armor values would be standardized by type, removing material from the balancing equation, making the balancing easier.

The idea of being forced to carry large weapons in your inventory, vs smaller weapons in a sheathe, is the whole point of that idea.  It allows you to give larger weapons more damage or other advantages, because they also have more disadvantages.  The more advantages/disadvantages brought in to play, the easier it is to make a broad array of weapons, in theory, because you have more 'knobs' to adjust for each one.  That particular sheathe idea has issues of it's own though, insofar as how do you quickly access the weapons inside?  Because that warhammer in the sheathe will not be much help if you're surprised by a skeleton and have to go into your inventory and pull it out manually.  But that's a detail, and not the point.  The point is, think up little ideas that can play into the weapon advantage/disadvantage system.  Don't just stick with the obvious stuff.  If you limit yourself to just basic weapon stuff like speed and damage, you're inherently limiting the useful array of weapons.

As a side comment, I know two-handed swords have a very popular place in mythology and fantasy.  But everything I'm read, from a historical perspective, indicates that they were a highly specialized type of sword, used for a very limited time, in very limited circumstances - mostly with relation to polearms.  Which isn't to say they shouldn't be part of a system - it's a fantasy game after all.  But I'd prioritize weapons that were used more broadly, over longer time periods.  Polearms themselves were a weapon used in mass formations, which minecraft just isn't about.  I'd love to see them used by mobs in formation, but I doubt that's practical.   I consider polearms different from spears though.  Spears are arguably the oldest and longest-used constructed weapon mankind has ever had aside from perhaps a club, and should absolutely be in. 

Another advantage I'd suggest for polearms (and large weapons in general) is that extremely large creatures intrinsically take half damage from medium weapons, and 10% damage from small weapons.  Simply put, you can't reach a giant's vital organs with a longsword.  You're fighting his lower legs.  That should be relatively easy to code vs a lot of other ideas (though it would lose some logic if the player's can at some point fly).

Sort of in summary, it seems a bit like you're trying to take all the major fantasy weapons and give them a role.  I think instead it'd be better if you develop a basic framework, and then expand only as far as you can create distinct advantageous roles.  Perhaps don't try to shoehorn in weapons just because they existed once upon a time irl.

1) Yes, I do know that two-handed weapons were a rare sight irl, because of their specialized role (eg the zweihanders were used by landschneks against cavalry), but I still fell like they would have a place.

2)So, you could theoretically carry only one heavy weapon on your back vs many little ones in sheats? That's a good idea too. It would make sense to carry your weapon not in your bag but outside of it, in a heat or strapped on your back. Reminds me of the mod Mine and Blade: Battlegear; it had 6 slots(one for each hand, for a total of 3 equipment sets) and you could toggle this equipment by pressing "R". Maybe the devs could add a one or two "sheat" slots to the inventory?

3) IF there will be big monsters, then yeah, I think heavy weapons would be needed. It was said that TFC 2 would have had a more "fantasy" theme, so I don't see that being far fetched at all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Removed Zweihander, Poleaxe, Polehammer (because the high-range melee niche is occupied by spears) and Halberd (was cool but didn't fit in any role)

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................

Suggested sheat mechanic (thanks for the tip Darmo), added weight and size stats, added quivers.

What do you think of it now?

Edited by TheSnarkyKnight
To avoid triple posting
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The things the combat update added was attack speed and a second hand. Range already existed. Three other things that help differentiate active combat is endurance, damage types, and durability. One thing outside of combat is cost. I believe that mix damages isn't too difficult to balance as long as the damage is split. So a dagger would have both pierce and slash at a ratio of 2 pierce to 1 slash so if it did 6 damage it would break down to 4 pierce and 2 slash.

 

  relative seconds 50 max + 2/s health 100     relative
  Range speed energy per use damage hands type cost
bow & arrow 100 2 10 25 2 pierce cheap
javelin 10 2 15 75 1 pierce cheap
sword 1 0.4 5 50 1 slash average
mace 0.8 1 10 50 1 blunt below average
axe 0.8 1 10 50 1 slash + blunt average
dagger 0.25 0.4 1 10 1 pierce + slash cheap
hammer 0.8 1 15 50 1 blunt below average
cross bow 100 5 12 100 2 pierce above average
two hand sword 1.5 1.2 25 100 2 slash + blunt expensive
two hand blunt 1.5 1.5 25 100 2 blunt above average
spear 2 0.5 10 50 2 pierce cheap

This is just how I would do it in this theoretical situation. Armor would be mixed but essentially most armor is designed for high pierce resistance since it's the most common, medium slash because it's the most deadly, and low blunt because even with padding and plate it'll make you ring like a bell even if it stops your bones from breaking. As you can see, you never fight with a dagger unless you have to. Dual wield weapons wasn't used because you can't actually attack quicker The only advantage is one weapon to attack and the other to defend with and shields defend better. Two hand weapons do serve a purpose if you are fighting only one enemy with less range than you, is not wearing armor, and you can hit them on the first or second try. Ya, they were that bad. Cost is tricky because any automation can trivialize any cost. Which is why your pizza is $10 dollars instead of the hundreds it would take to collect, grow, and process all the ingredients by scratch yourself. 

This does not count for armor or the energy it takes to move around in said armor. It would need retooled with tiered weapons and skills. Blunt damage is force trauma damage which is why it's on the heavier weapons.

 

Edited by Stroam
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Re Stroam' s ideas:

I'd agree that cost is not a huge factor.  Unless cost is significantly different in TFC2 from TFC1.  TFC1, cost is either 1 ingot or two ingots.  That's it, and given the size of ore veins, after you find your first vein of ore it's no longer really a factor.   Now, if TFC2 brought it other factors - for instance two-handed swords take multiple smithing steps and/or have to be tempered - that would help make there be an actual practical cost difference, in terms of time and fuel.  But 100 units of metal more or less is, to me, nothing (unless TFC2 ore gen is different, which from what we've seen so far, I don't think it will be).  You've got 5 different cost categories there and I'm wondering how you're thinking of defining them.

I'd question classifying a two-handed sword as slash+blunt.  I think that's probably stretching it a bit.  Actually dividing the damage between types on dual-damage weapons is an interesting take, and would help in the balancing vs two separate and entirely equal damages.  I still think it unnecessarily complicates things.

I'm questioning why one would even have a dagger, with such low damage and range.  At that point why not just call it a knife, and it's the tool players carry to cut things?  And if they're forced to fight with it, god speed.  Unless of course, extenuating circumstance are involved.  Killing mobs with a ritual knife to trap their soul for instance.  

Energy use, good angle.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know of any 1.8+ mods that successfully incorporate 2-handed attacks?  With correct animations?  I'm having trouble imagining how that would animate successfully. 

Re: SnarkyKnight

I'd suggest considering a chart like Stroam made.  That is much more convenient for comparison.  I also might suggest using numbers or letters, rather than hyphenated descriptors.  Is "medium-low" the low end of medium, or the middle of low?  It's unclear and muddies the discussion unnecessarily.

I see you revised the OP.  On the weapons and encumbrance front, I think one should be careful on that.  Blanket speed debuffs are one of the most pernicious debuffs in video games, especially ones with large exploration components.  I think it'd be a hard balancing act keeping 2-handed weapons good enough that people would want to use them, while being always encumbered by them.  Juuuust in case you hadn't seen it, there is a thread about encumbrance, which Bioxx himself initiated, in which he was basically proposing the idea of all items having weight, and the player having a carry limit.  In this scenario, perhaps giving 2-handed weapons a very high weight might be more reasonable than having them cause a blanket encumbrance?  

What if rather than a container-type item, there were simply 2 specialized slots to the left of the hotbar, by the shield, that only accept small and medium weapons?  These slots only become active if the player is wearing a sheathe for EACH slot (put on and off in the inventory screen, like armor).  This allows the player to scroll to those weapons, if they're not comfortable with hotkeys.  The disadvantage of two-handed weapons would be that they cannot be used in sheathe slots, you have to carry them on your hotbar, BUT you DO have to have two sheathes on you (representing a back sheathe) AND they disable the shield slot.   If you don't have sheathes, you can still carry them on your hotbar, but THEN they do encumber you significantly (or grey out 2 extra hotbar slots?).  So effectively you have a 4-slot spread.  You can carry two medium-small weapons AND a shield AND have 10 hotbar slots, or you can carry one two-handed weapon on your hotbar, with shield and sheathe slots all taken up by that one weapon.  THAT would create very significant difference, and more easily justify higher damages for 2-handed weapons.  You could perhaps extend that idea slightly by having a medium weapon take both sheathe slots.  So then small weapons even have a slight advantage over medium, as far as inventory space goes, as you could carry two smalls in the sheathe slots.  You could maybe even allow tools to be used in the sheathe slots.  Knives, chisels, and propicks are small.  Axes and hammers are medium.  Saws and scythes can't use sheathe slots, but also don't require sheathes - they're just carried in inventory or hotbar normally.

As far as quivers, TFC1 already has them, and the mechanics you're suggesting are a lot more restrictive and complicated.  I feel like the current quiver works just fine, honestly.  Not sure there's really a big need four three different kinds.

Overall I'm still dubious about weapon range.  I know it's huge in pvp, but I feel like vs. mobs, if the player can have too much melee range, you risk breaking the melee mechanic more than it already is, as far as the player reaching mobs that can't reach them.  It would help balance it if ultra-ranged melee weapons actually cannot affect man-sized and smaller creatures that get to close to the player.  In that way, small fast creatures would be a threat to pike-armed players.  Overall though I think a max melee range of 2, for a spear, is a better idea.  It's basically like vanilla, I think.

Edited by Darmo
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 1/4/2017 at 4:13 PM, Darmo said:

Re Stroam' s ideas:

I'd agree that cost is not a huge factor.  Unless cost is significantly different in TFC2 from TFC1.  TFC1, cost is either 1 ingot or two ingots.  That's it, and given the size of ore veins, after you find your first vein of ore it's no longer really a factor.   Now, if TFC2 brought it other factors - for instance two-handed swords take multiple smithing steps and/or have to be tempered - that would help make there be an actual practical cost difference, in terms of time and fuel.  But 100 units of metal more or less is, to me, nothing (unless TFC2 ore gen is different, which from what we've seen so far, I don't think it will be).  You've got 5 different cost categories there and I'm wondering how you're thinking of defining them.

I'd question classifying a two-handed sword as slash+blunt.  I think that's probably stretching it a bit.  Actually dividing the damage between types on dual-damage weapons is an interesting take, and would help in the balancing vs two separate and entirely equal damages.  I still think it unnecessarily complicates things.

I'm questioning why one would even have a dagger, with such low damage and range.  At that point why not just call it a knife, and it's the tool players carry to cut things?  And if they're forced to fight with it, god speed.  Unless of course, extenuating circumstance are involved.  Killing mobs with a ritual knife to trap their soul for instance.  

Energy use, good angle.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know of any 1.8+ mods that successfully incorporate 2-handed attacks?  With correct animations?  I'm having trouble imagining how that would animate successfully. 

Re: SnarkyKnight

I'd suggest considering a chart like Stroam made.  That is much more convenient for comparison.  I also might suggest using numbers or letters, rather than hyphenated descriptors.  Is "medium-low" the low end of medium, or the middle of low?  It's unclear and muddies the discussion unnecessarily.

I see you revised the OP.  On the weapons and encumbrance front, I think one should be careful on that.  Blanket speed debuffs are one of the most pernicious debuffs in video games, especially ones with large exploration components.  I think it'd be a hard balancing act keeping 2-handed weapons good enough that people would want to use them, while being always encumbered by them.  Juuuust in case you hadn't seen it, there is a thread about encumbrance, which Bioxx himself initiated, in which he was basically proposing the idea of all items having weight, and the player having a carry limit.  In this scenario, perhaps giving 2-handed weapons a very high weight might be more reasonable than having them cause a blanket encumbrance?  

What if rather than a container-type item, there were simply 2 specialized slots to the left of the hotbar, by the shield, that only accept small and medium weapons?  These slots only become active if the player is wearing a sheathe for EACH slot (put on and off in the inventory screen, like armor).  This allows the player to scroll to those weapons, if they're not comfortable with hotkeys.  The disadvantage of two-handed weapons would be that they cannot be used in sheathe slots, you have to carry them on your hotbar, BUT you DO have to have two sheathes on you (representing a back sheathe) AND they disable the shield slot.   If you don't have sheathes, you can still carry them on your hotbar, but THEN they do encumber you significantly (or grey out 2 extra hotbar slots?).  So effectively you have a 4-slot spread.  You can carry two medium-small weapons AND a shield AND have 10 hotbar slots, or you can carry one two-handed weapon on your hotbar, with shield and sheathe slots all taken up by that one weapon.  THAT would create very significant difference, and more easily justify higher damages for 2-handed weapons.  You could perhaps extend that idea slightly by having a medium weapon take both sheathe slots.  So then small weapons even have a slight advantage over medium, as far as inventory space goes, as you could carry two smalls in the sheathe slots.  You could maybe even allow tools to be used in the sheathe slots.  Knives, chisels, and propicks are small.  Axes and hammers are medium.  Saws and scythes can't use sheathe slots, but also don't require sheathes - they're just carried in inventory or hotbar normally.

As far as quivers, TFC1 already has them, and the mechanics you're suggesting are a lot more restrictive and complicated.  I feel like the current quiver works just fine, honestly.  Not sure there's really a big need four three different kinds.

Overall I'm still dubious about weapon range.  I know it's huge in pvp, but I feel like vs. mobs, if the player can have too much melee range, you risk breaking the melee mechanic more than it already is, as far as the player reaching mobs that can't reach them.  It would help balance it if ultra-ranged melee weapons actually cannot affect man-sized and smaller creatures that get to close to the player.  In that way, small fast creatures would be a threat to pike-armed players.  Overall though I think a max melee range of 2, for a spear, is a better idea.  It's basically like vanilla, I think.

I think that the system you just suggested is the best and like all the things you've said, actually, so that's it. I will get around to make a chart of the weapons eventually and updating the post, but I will be quite busy for the next couple of days, so it'll have to wait. The big problem is that minecraft's combat mechanics are incredibly bare-bones; the combat update made combat less basic, but it's still really really simple. Too simple.

Edited by TheSnarkyKnight
i'm dumb
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On ‎4‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 7:13 AM, Darmo said:

Re Stroam' s ideas:

I'd agree that cost is not a huge factor.  Unless cost is significantly different in TFC2 from TFC1.  TFC1, cost is either 1 ingot or two ingots.  That's it, and given the size of ore veins, after you find your first vein of ore it's no longer really a factor.   Now, if TFC2 brought it other factors - for instance two-handed swords take multiple smithing steps and/or have to be tempered - that would help make there be an actual practical cost difference, in terms of time and fuel.  But 100 units of metal more or less is, to me, nothing (unless TFC2 ore gen is different, which from what we've seen so far, I don't think it will be).  You've got 5 different cost categories there and I'm wondering how you're thinking of defining them.

I'd question classifying a two-handed sword as slash+blunt.  I think that's probably stretching it a bit.  Actually dividing the damage between types on dual-damage weapons is an interesting take, and would help in the balancing vs two separate and entirely equal damages.  I still think it unnecessarily complicates things.

I'm questioning why one would even have a dagger, with such low damage and range.  At that point why not just call it a knife, and it's the tool players carry to cut things?  And if they're forced to fight with it, god speed.  Unless of course, extenuating circumstance are involved.  Killing mobs with a ritual knife to trap their soul for instance.  

Energy use, good angle.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know of any 1.8+ mods that successfully incorporate 2-handed attacks?  With correct animations?  I'm having trouble imagining how that would animate successfully. 

In that theorized world everything loses durability over time and cost is a factor mainly of how quickly your weapon reduces to the same damage as hitting something with a stick. And it's fairly arbitrary, not mattering much in a single battle and would only matter if you couldn't repair/carry a spare or just disliked having to maintain a weapon.

I said blunt trauma basically boils down to force trauma, which anything that mas significant mass would do which is why a two handed sword has blunt. It only unnecessarily complicates things if you don't add any damage types. As soon as you add a damage type to the ones already in minecraft then it's all up for debate on a different thread. 

Dagger and knife is the same thing in my mind. You wouldn't use it unless you had no other weapon like when starting out. 

As far as I know two handed weapons isn't really a thing and would boil down to a two handed weapon going in one hand and emptying and disabling the offhand slot. For simplicity I'd personally just not have them as an option.

I also agree with Darmo on the quiver.

Energy use just drives home how encumbersome of these weapons are. It's what separates a mace from a hammer and makes fighting multiple enemies actually difficult. If you never tire than one melee enemy is the same as an army of them. If you tie it in with a percentage based debuff on attack speed then max energy becomes really important. Tie that to player level along with health then level really matters. That will make you rethink taking on that boss or spending xp to enchant something. Plus you can use it for limiting how long/far you can swim, dive, run, cut down trees, and other laborious activities. Have xp gained by recovering energy and it allows you to level by doing stuff other than killing mobs. Then a logger could wave a sword around as long as a soldier and the only reason he does less damage is due to skill. Splitting this concept off into it's own idea at some point.

Edited by Stroam
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ok, I' ve redone all the post and made a chart of melee weapons. Will make a chart for ranged weapons, thrown weapons, ammunition and shields tomorrow.

Also, I messed up while making the poll and accidentally clicked enter while I was making the other options. Is there any way to modify a poll?

Edited by TheSnarkyKnight
Cause I can't write properly.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Strange, that nobody allow to throw stones, like snow balls, in TFC1. Maybe it can be fixed in TFC2.

Of course only minor damage and no knock-out can be taken for sake of game balance.

Edited by ciekma
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 4/10/2017 at 0:30 PM, ciekma said:

Strange, that nobody allow to throw stones, like snow balls, in TFC1. Maybe it can be fixed in TFC2.

Of course only minor damage and no knock-out can be taken for sake of game balance.

As long as you can't rapid fire.

Edited by Stroam
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redone the whole thing for the third time, simplified the weapons to only 2 per category (only exception are the spears)

Please read and let me know :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I applaud the simplification.  I don't think weight is likely to factor very heavily into the equation, given all the stuff a player must carry.  I think the carry limit will likely be rather high.  So the 2kg separating spear (both single handed) and short spear, probably will favor the spear in almost all cases, given its superior reach and damage.  I'd get rid of one of them probably.

I'd take warhammer over mace any day for 500 more grams and .2s slower. 

Maul at +3 damage vs Great mace, cons .4s slower an d+4 kg, seems worth to me.  But I could be wrong

I think your maces and hammers are pretty redundant - morning star excepted of course, being 1 of only 3 single handed melee piercing weapons (or 1 of 2, if one of the spears gets removed).  That is, *serious* weapons.  Yes, I'm looking at *you* dagger/knife.

I do wonder though, what's going to be the graphical difference between a mace and morning star?  A few spikes?  I don't think any chain-using weapons are going to be a good idea, given minecraft's limited rendering ability.  What if instead of morning start you did a rapier?  Or ditch short spear, and make regular spear 2-handed?  Just a thought.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

15 hours ago, Darmo said:

I applaud the simplification.  I don't think weight is likely to factor very heavily into the equation, given all the stuff a player must carry.  I think the carry limit will likely be rather high.  So the 2kg separating spear (both single handed) and short spear, probably will favor the spear in almost all cases, given its superior reach and damage.  I'd get rid of one of them probably.

I'd take warhammer over mace any day for 500 more grams and .2s slower. 

Maul at +3 damage vs Great mace, cons .4s slower an d+4 kg, seems worth to me.  But I could be wrong

I think your maces and hammers are pretty redundant - morning star excepted of course, being 1 of only 3 single handed melee piercing weapons (or 1 of 2, if one of the spears gets removed).  That is, *serious* weapons.  Yes, I'm looking at *you* dagger/knife.

I do wonder though, what's going to be the graphical difference between a mace and morning star?  A few spikes?  I don't think any chain-using weapons are going to be a good idea, given minecraft's limited rendering ability.  What if instead of morning start you did a rapier?  Or ditch short spear, and make regular spear 2-handed?  Just a thought.

I know that hammers just look better in front of maces, but that's because they just are better: warhammers where used from the 1300s onward because of just how tough armour got. A mace just was not enough, so the warhammer was invented, having both a blunt end for smashing faces (the beak would get stuck in unarmoured or lightly armoured opponents) while the beak was used to pierce plate armour, that was hard to deal with. Of course, a shot from a longbow would hurt and crossbows just pierced it, but what if the opponent was already in your face?

Mauls were a rarer weapon: they were used from 1382 onward, when 3000 rebellious citizens from Paris used these big hammers, previously used only as a construction tool, as a weapon. That's when they realized that a big lump of steel , or even just wood, on a stick was unwieldy and heavy, but would also beat up the enemy pretty badly regardless of armour. It was still rarely used because of its size and weight.

I think that a spear should be one-handed because of the famous spear/shield combo, used by Roman leggionaires ,Greek oplites and by the Macedon phalanx and by many other armies, and because it is possible to wield a spear one-handed just as it is possible to wield it two-handed. Of course, wielding it two-handed gives you the possibility to attack faster, put more strenght in your attacks and better control the blade, but I don't hink that implementing a way to check if the spear is used with a shield or not would be worth the effort. Yeah, think I'll get rid of the short spear. Spear and pike can stay. What do you think?

Addressing the stylistical question, maces were very much varied in appearance. Even a rock tied to a stick can be called a mace, and depending on the time period and the geographical location maces had different looks. Since I'm basing myself off of medieval weaponry, I suggest using a flanged mace as the source of inspiration

Spoiler

This is the design I would personally use but there are many more:                       

However morningstars, aka holy water sprinklers, are distinguished by the peculiarity of having spikes on their surface. This was to better penetrate chainmail and, believe it or not, as a form of mercy: a completely blunt mace would break bones and rupture organs, causing internal bleeding and many nasty things, while a spiked mace would cause puncturing wounds along with the blunt damage, often making the opponent bleed out rather than die of painful internal injuries (of course getting hit with a spiky stick hurts a lot, but way less than an inflamed and possibly infected broken arm that will make you die painfully in a week or two). The chained ones that you're talking about are flails, they were at the start repurposed farming tools that were pretty effective in battle. When specialized battle models were made, their head varied in shape. It could be a plain metal ball, a falnged head or a spiked head. There were also flails that had a metal ring as a head; thim made them better at catching swords ang gave the the ability to cut just like a blade when swung at high speed.

I would not get rid of the morningstar in favor of a rapier for two main reasons:

  1. Rapiers are a much younger weapon: mauls and warhammers are already stretching the limit, being invented and used around the end of the Middle Ages, but rapiers were invented in 1500, in the middle of the Renaissance.
  2. Personal preference

So, I wouldn't get rid of the morningstar, but I would add the rapier as another weapon. However, that would create redundancy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hammers are heavier and slower, while having higher damage against armour. Let me know if you think the pike or the short spear should go. I think the short spear.

 

Edited by TheSnarkyKnight
To avoid double posting
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, I'd say short spear should go.  It's just too similar to the spear as it stands.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Darmo said:

Ya, I'd say short spear should go.  It's just too similar to the spear as it stands.

Done it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kaishi's Weapon Pack is a mod that offer various weapons with different speed and damage values. Same general idea as here, it can give an idea of how it'S possible to achieve.

I like the idea of adding variety to the choice of weapon, even if at some point it is almost only for the look. That being said, instead of reducing the number of weapon by damage type, I would have a tendency to increase it and to include non-european-medieval weapons. There is many kind of weapons that were made everywhere in the world, for example, just looking at sword, you can have blades like scimitar, katana, dao (chinese), etc. and much more variation of weapon if looking at mace, lance, and other type of weapons. Yes, even if they are almost the same with just a slight speed of damage difference, people will get their weapon of choice based on different consideration. I would get a katana anytime, even if not the "ultimate best" as it just what I like the most.

3D weapon model lik eKaishi's weapon can clearly make the difference between a mace and a morning star for example. 

I am really looking forward on what and how weapon/armor will be implemented if TFC 2. Even if not in TFC 2, there could easilly be a TFC2 addon to add many weapons.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, aliceingame said:

Kaishi's Weapon Pack is a mod that offer various weapons with different speed and damage values. Same general idea as here, it can give an idea of how it'S possible to achieve.

I like the idea of adding variety to the choice of weapon, even if at some point it is almost only for the look. That being said, instead of reducing the number of weapon by damage type, I would have a tendency to increase it and to include non-european-medieval weapons. There is many kind of weapons that were made everywhere in the world, for example, just looking at sword, you can have blades like scimitar, katana, dao (chinese), etc. and much more variation of weapon if looking at mace, lance, and other type of weapons. Yes, even if they are almost the same with just a slight speed of damage difference, people will get their weapon of choice based on different consideration. I would get a katana anytime, even if not the "ultimate best" as it just what I like the most.

3D weapon model lik eKaishi's weapon can clearly make the difference between a mace and a morning star for example. 

I am really looking forward on what and how weapon/armor will be implemented if TFC 2. Even if not in TFC 2, there could easilly be a TFC2 addon to add many weapons.

I know, If it were for me there would be 25 different weapons for type, but, as Darmo pointed out, that would be just a a waste of time, sprites and item ids. I would have litterally every weapon ever existed, even only for flavor, but that's redundant and wasteful.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TheSnarkyKnight said:

I know, If it were for me there would be 25 different weapons for type, but, as Darmo pointed out, that would be just a a waste of time, sprites and item ids. I would have litterally every weapon ever existed, even only for flavor, but that's redundant and wasteful.

I do agree that making every type of weapon that ever existed is a bit too much. However, the question is, what is the real difference in the game if there is 17 or 50 weapons ? I do not think that it will break minecraft to have 50 type of weapon.

There is still much unknown thing about weapon damage system, metal tier added value (damage/resistance) and how bioxx want to emplementit. But of course, 50 weapons x 10 metals sound crazy. That could be reduced by selecting what are the valid metal tier for different weapons. For example you could say that a katana can only be made of steel and higher tier. Maybe some weapob could only be made of copper/bronze.
As for the waste of time, I am sure that people would be happy to help providing texture for weapons, even 3d texture (as done for animals), to get 3d model like in Kaishi's mod or in modpack like zori3d pack, or even create addon to add the diversity we want, even if it is "redundant", as it is really bothering Minecraft players (honestly, how many power generation mod, pipe mods, storage mods, ore doubling mods are there ? and still, people use more than one of thes in modpacks). 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now